TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal filed by the Revenue. The assessee has raised following grounds in C.O.: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi (hereinafter called C!T(A) for short) erred in not adjudicating on the grounds of appeal no 1,3 & 4 which are as below: Ground of appeal no 1 : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levies penalty under section 271 (1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as he has failed to record his satisfaction in the Assessment order that the Appellant has concealed the particulars of its income. The Assessing officer has ignored the legal requirement that satisf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, deleted the penalty imposed by the A.O. by holding as under: "3.6 Findings:- I have carefully considered the impugned Penalty order, written submission of Ld. AR and oral arguments during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. AR has levied penalty U/S 271 (1 )(C ) at the rate of 100% on tax sought to be evaded on three additions: 1. Provision of interest on SDF loans Rs. 17,80,611/- 2. Dharmada Collection and interest on accumulated Funds Rs. 23,56,3461- In his written submission, Ld. AR's main arguments against lavy of penalty u/s 271(l)(C) on these addition are that at the time of filing return of income, for each item of addition there was atleast the difference of opinion regarding allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that a claim for expenditure stands disallowed does not led to the inference that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in regard to that item. 4) The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V Ajaib singh & Co. 253 ITR 630, where it has been held that if a claim made by an assessee under erroneous understanding of law has been disallowed, if cannot lead to the conclusion of concealment on the part of the assessee. 5) The decision of Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of CIT V. Haryana Education society, 251 ITR 846. An actual payment of House Tax was made and the claim was made bona fide for deduction, the disallowance of such claim would not amount of concealment. 6) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt of Delhi in the case of CIT V Amtek Auto Co. 352 ITR 394, where the addition was made on debatable issue, penalty u/s 271(l)(C) was not laviable. I have considered entire judicial pronouncements on this issue cited by Ld. AR and the Assessing Officer. After considering these judicial pronouncement, I am of the opinion that unless a case is made, that the Assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income, Penalty u/s 27I(1)(c) is not leviable. In order to satisfy either of these two criteria, the court has decided that for levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(C), either there should be ex-facie bogus claim of expense, deduction by the assessee or there should prima facie no two different opinion on the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, his argument that there was primafacie two opinion at the time of filing return of income and it is not a case of ex-facie bogus claim of deduction appears to be convincing. In view of the above and considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that penalty u/s 271(l)(C) is not leviable. 1) Addition on account of Dhrmada collection and interest on accumulated fund for Rs. 23,56,346/-:- Ld, A.R's main argument against the non levy of penalty U/S 27I(I)(C) on this quantum of addition is that at the time of filing of income tax return, there was Direct decision on the issue of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli cotton Mills 116 ITR 60 (SC) where it was held that Dharmade Collecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....R. on the other hand invited our attention to computation of income as placed in paper book pages 1 to 8 and it was argued that in the computation of income, the entire information was submitted and therfore it was not a case of wrong furnishing of particulars and rather it is a case where all information was submitted and the very fact that different authorities had delivered different views on the two additions itself proves that two opinions were possible and therefore, penalty was not imposable in this case. Relying upon the case law of CITVs Manilal Tarachand 254 ITR 630 (Guj.) Ld. A.R. argued that in that case, it was held that if income was not declared in one year and was declared in succeeding year, penalty was not imposable. Ther....